Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Talligurl said:

We are certainly being distracted, so that filthy rich corporations can get even richer while regular people get sick and die.

Yep, and who will get rich combatting "man made climate change"? Filthy rich corporations providing un necessary solutions to a non-existent problems.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

75 plus years of fire suppression has led to this. Instead of small fires clearing out the underbrush every few years we let the accumulated forest detritus build and build and build. And when there i

Posted Images

50 years of failed climate predictions, but this time I bet they got it right.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

This time I believe them, this time its true.

From now on I vow to fight climate change. From this day forward I promise that my carbon footprint will never exceed that of Al Gore, Barack Obama or Bill Gates.

Hey if they can sacrifice, so can I. 

 

 

eyeroll.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Hotter, dryer weather, caused by "climate change" or "global warming" via the increasing CO2 caused by humans, is the primary cause of the excessive wildfires we're seeing.  Of course there are contributing factors -- the encroachment of humans into wilderness areas which disallow the natural burning of wildfires because people and property must be protected, and people are careless with fire as they've always been, and lightening continues to strike and initiate fires. But the underlying conditions created by heat and drought create the tinderbox which allows the fires to easily ignite and rapidly spread.

Wildfires follow a simple but dangerous equation -- hotter, dryer conditions + more people in the world = a greater likelihood that there will be more ferocious wildfires threatening lives and property. As temperatures around the world rise, even areas not accustomed to seeing wildfires could be at risk in the future.
    NASA  

Records are being broken all over the place.

The decade that just ended was by far the hottest ever measured on Earth, capped off by the second-warmest year on record:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-last-decade-was-the-hottest-on-record
--------
Locally, Phoenix had 50 days this past summer with temps over 110.
https://www.newsweek.com/phoenix-has-record-breaking-heat-wave-50-days-110-degree-weather-1528512
-------
Regarding the recent Los Angeles heat wave:

"Climatologist Bill Patzert said Saturday that September heat waves are not new. But the extreme heat — and the duration of heat waves — is new. Over the last century, the average temperature in Los Angeles over the entire year has increased by about 5 degrees, Patzert said.

But the average temperature for the months of August and September has increased by 8 to 9 degrees, he said.
Although one- to two-day heat waves were the norm in the middle of the century, “now we see one-week heat waves,” he said."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/sunday-was-one-of-the-hottest-days-ever-recorded-in-southern-california-a-tally-of-historic-heat/ar-BB18NxW5?ocid=uxbndlbing

Thank you, Luna; also, how, exactly, is this a post to 'haha' at?  How, ffs?  Your country is on fire; it isn't funny. (that last NOT aimed at Luna, obviously)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

Thank you, Luna; also, how, exactly, is this a post to 'haha' at?  How, ffs?  Your country is on fire; it isn't funny. (that last NOT aimed at Luna, obviously)

It is not just that your country is on fire, it is the insistence that the fires are the sole result of global warming, without consideration to forest management issues which could have resulted a much more manageable problem. I didn't HaHa the post, but that is the issue I see in it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

Thank you, Luna; also, how, exactly, is this a post to 'haha' at?  How, ffs?  Your country is on fire; it isn't funny. (that last NOT aimed at Luna, obviously)

I wasn't laughing at the forest fires. 😁

Forest fires are part of the natural order of things. They have always happened, they always will happen.

Thoughtful forest management, including controlled burning, cutting fire breaks around towns, and yes even tree harvesting  can have the effect of minimizing the chances of out of control wildfires in the future.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Talligurl said:

It is not just that your country is on fire, it is the insistence that the fires are the sole result of global warming, without consideration to forest management issues which could have resulted a much more manageable problem. I didn't HaHa the post, but that is the issue I see in it. 

Not my country, I'm in the UK.  My only point was that it is sickening to see someone for whom the US IS their country, laugh at intelligent and well reasoned posts because their political fave has talked utter gibbering nonsense about it and they have to agree because, I dunno, hate? stupidity? they really like orange things?  

The fires being out of control and dangerous to humans is almost entirely die to human activity and over population and greed.  Fire's natural enough, but the degree to which these have grown and the negative impact on us, not so much.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna protect your property by cutting a firebreak around your property?

If might cost you big time.

From the article:

They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

I can post 100 similar stories, but you get the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

It is not just that your country is on fire, it is the insistence that the fires are the sole result of global warming  forest management issues, without consideration to forest management issues global warming which could have resulted a much more manageable problem. I didn't HaHa the post, but that is the issue I see in it. 

That issue is exactly as laughable.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Skimming social media, I have seen many reports that some of the fires were intentionally started. I don't care what you think or believe on other matters, but that is quite extreme and serious-to put it lightly.  We are living in crazy times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gage Wirefly said:

Skimming social media, I have seen many reports that some of the fires were intentionally started. I don't care what you think or believe on other matters, but that is quite extreme and serious-to put it lightly.  We are living in crazy times. 

I was under the impression that most fires usually have a human origin, negligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gage Wirefly said:

Skimming social media, I have seen many reports that some of the fires were intentionally started. I don't care what you think or believe on other matters, but that is quite extreme and serious-to put it lightly.  We are living in crazy times. 

I was under the impression that most fires usually have a human origin, negligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I was under the impression that most fires usually have a human origin, negligence.

There are a certain percentage of forest fires that have a specific natural cause, mainly lightning strikes. Whether the resulting fire is manageable, or becomes an out of control wildfire depends on forest management practices that have been in place over the previous decades.

However, putting out every forest fire as soon as it starts is NOT a proper forest management technique.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

That issue is exactly as laughable.

We aren't talking about forest fires per se, we are talking about out of control wildfires.

Lets say forest fires are caused by global warming. The point is, do they become out of control wildfires due to decades of poor forest management policies, or are they containable as a result of good forest management practices?

Containable does NOT necessarily mean putting them out, it means minimizing extent and threat to human habitation

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

We aren't talking about forest fires per se, we are talking about out of control wildfires.

Lets say forest fires are caused by global warming. The point is, do they become out of control wildfires due to decades of poor forest management policies, or are they containable as a result of good forest management practices?

Containable does NOT necessarily mean putting them out, it means minimizing extent and threat to human habitation

 

Global warming doesn't "cause" forest fires, nor does poor forest management.

Any fire requires three things: 1) fuel, 2) heat, and 3) oxygen.

What weather conditions (i.e. global warming) can do is make it more likely that the exact same fuel (i.e. forest) requires less heat to catch fire.

As far as fire management, the "extinguish all fires" policy that caused flammable underbrush to build up hasn't been common policy for decades.

https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/policy-and-law/fire-u-s-forest-service/u-s-forest-service-fire-suppression/

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Ok here is a start I can get you more when I have more time.

Thanks. That is a start.  It doesn't answer the question, though.  To tell whether the dangers are greater than the dangers of using fossil fuels, you'd have to do a careful study to determine exactly how great the risks on both sides of the equation are.  Otherwise, all you're doing is tossing guesses back and forth.  You can't resolve an important question like that without taking a detailed, balanced look at the risks to see which set is really greater.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point of view on fossile fuels is pretty simple. Fossile fuels are nothing more than a biomass "battery", an energy potential accumulated over millions of years.

As long as you use in a year, more than the earth can produce in a year, you have a problem.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Talligurl said:
19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

you have any idea how many people would flat out DIE if we stopped industrial agriculture

Industrial agriculture is terribly inefficient at actually producing healthy food that people need to live. The fact is people are going to die if we do not stop. Actually people are dying already.

I would agree that food grown in natural as opposed to artificial soils contains more nutrients (saw that study somewhere). It's very difficult to study the long-term effects of deficiencies in vitamin and mineral levels coming from artificially grown food however, but I have no doubt these elements in our food are there for a reason.

However, what I'm speaking to is mass starvation...billions of people dying if we were suddenly deprived of the way in which we currently produce much of our food.

Also, why do you say industrial agriculture is more hazardous than burning fossil fuels regarding climate change. The following statement, by the IPCC, contradicts your assertion:

"One of the first things the IPCC concluded is that there are several greenhouse gases responsible for warming, and humans emit them in a variety of ways. Most come from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, buildings, factories, and power plants. The gas responsible for the most warming is carbon dioxide, or CO2. Other contributors include methane released from landfills, natural gas and petroleum industries, and agriculture (especially from the digestive systems of grazing animals); nitrous oxide from fertilizers; gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes; and the loss of forests that would otherwise store CO2".

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-causes/

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Thanks. That is a start.  It doesn't answer the question, though.  To tell whether the dangers are greater than the dangers of using fossil fuels, you'd have to do a careful study to determine exactly how great the risks on both sides of the equation are.  Otherwise, all you're doing is tossing guesses back and forth.  You can't resolve an important question like that without taking a detailed, balanced look at the risks to see which set is really greater.

By far the most economically significant biofuel in the US is ethanol, produced from corn (nearly all grown with reduced-tillage cultivation for a whole host of economic and conservation reasons, in modern North American agriculture). It might consume marginally more of the total plant carbon if cornstalk biomass cellulosic ethanol production were economically viable, but that's been an unfulfilled "promise" for decades. Grain-based ethanol production converts only a small share of even the grain's carbon, the majority remaining in byproduct animal feed, and manure from feeding operations ends up back on the land somewhere (but in the process generating lots of uncaptured, uncombusted methane, a many times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2).

Perhaps the larger problem is that even with reduced tillage, a lot of fossil fuel* goes into growing corn and into the milling process that prepares it for distillation.  (There's also a non-trivial amount of CO2 generated in the reaction itself.) I've yet to see an analysis that shows the full cycle of corn-based ethanol energy production to be a substantial environmental win over fossil fuels... although to be fair, I haven't tracked it closely, and most of what's written on the subject is based on politics and a kind of religious "environmentalism" rather than science and economics.

_____________________
*Electricity could substitute as energy source for some of this, but it's not an environmental panacea either, unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

I've yet to see an analysis that shows the full cycle of corn-based ethanol energy production to be a substantial environmental win over fossil fuels... although to be fair, I haven't tracked it closely, and most of what's written on the subject is based on politics and a kind of religious "environmentalism" rather than science and economics.

That's what I suspected.  It's not an easy question to study properly.  Until someone does it, we're left with a lot of hand waving and political posturing that doesn't resolve anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

My point of view on fossile fuels is pretty simple. Fossile fuels are nothing more than a biomass "battery", an energy potential accumulated over millions of years.

As long as you use in a year, more than the earth can produce in a year, you have a problem.

Putting the carbon that has been sequestered in that battery for millions of years back into circulation faster than it can be removed produces another problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...